Talk:Garmin G1000
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
"Advert" tag and salesy voice
[edit]I think I've successfully neutralized the salesy voice and have thus removed the advert tag. Feel free to stick it back in there if you disagree. I'd also appreciate someone proofreading as I have to head out the door to fly a G1000 DA40... :) ChadScott 00:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Chad, you've done a great job. It's totally factual, accurately representing a system which is the flagship collection of components of the Garmin line, as well as a leading industry example of the right way to approach the issue of integrating modern electronics. Well done, and I sincerely hope no one feels an incessant need to add an advert tag. This is a good article on a key, and rapidly-growing modern general aviation navigation and communication system that's a great example for other companies to follow. It is NOT an advertisement. Mugaliens 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
More on advertising
[edit]I have removed the references to the PFC software and Trescott's book, as these seem to be advertising. If someone feels these are important, they could be included through internal links or as references. 138.88.168.214 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Prices
[edit]What are the prices for an EASA certified, let´s say, C172 retrofit? 84.173.198.202 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can't currently purchase G1000 systems for aftermarket installation in aircraft other than the King Air. The G600 (a G1000 "lite") can be STC'd into aircraft in the United States, but I'm unsure of international aircraft. At any rate, I have yet to see pricing on the G600, but if it's typical of other glass installations (Chelton, etc.) you'd be looking at USD$80,000 or more. -- ChadScott 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Updating dated information
[edit]I am updating this page to remove some of the more "outdated" information. The G1000 system (especially in its newer iterations) is becoming far more diverse than what is suggested in this article, so I will try to show a more accurate description of the system as it exists today. For example I am removing many of the LRU "model numbers" since there is a much greater variety of these LRUs in service today than what is suggested by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.75.35 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed unencyclopedic section
[edit]I've removed the following section from the article because it appears to be Wikipedia:Original research ("that I experienced the hard way") as well on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a handbook.
LjL (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggested Questions to Help Measure Pilot Proficiency
[edit]Here are some "gotchas" that I experienced the hard way. Practicing these on the ground in a trainer will help you ensure you can avoid these points of confusion in the air where you'd rather concentrate on other things. Getting yourself into a state of confusion on an instrument approach is never good, especially in IMC.
1. Look the the Hayward (HWD) RNAV (GPS) Z Rwy 28L approach[1]. If you fly the course reversal pilot nav at 5600', when will you expect to pick up the glidepath. What is the difference between the magenta ">" symbol and the magenta glide path diamond?
2. If you attempt to activate a leg in a flight plan when you are past abeam the terminating fix of that leg, what happens?
3. Look at the Klammath Falls (LMT) RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach[2]. If you execute the missed approach but take your time to press the "susp" softkey to enable waypoint sequencing until after LAGYI with the autopilot in nav mode, what happens?
References
- ^ "NACO TPP Northern California" (PDF). FAA National Aeronautical Charting Office. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
- ^ "NACO TPP Northern California" (PDF). FAA National Aeronautical Charting Office. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
I'm going to hop in here to say, I think the part that states "Glass cockpit aircraft may not be suitable for primary training.[5]" should be removed. As it is, the source for that is unavailable, and it seems more opinion than anything else. Idk though. FireLordAang (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
missing links
[edit]Where should the links be to either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit or the EFIS article (and why those are not one and the same? )